The integration of natural science and spirituality is accomplished by putting consciousness into the equations of the quantized relativistic model of reality. This approach, with a quantum calculus based on the precise empirical data provided by the Large Hadron Collider, leads to the discovery of gimmel, the non-physical third form that must exist in addition to mass and energy, in order for there to be a stable universe.

Friday, September 14, 2018

Life is what happens between the two extremely
traumatic experiences called birth and death. Because the beginning and
eventual end of life are so traumatic, they are all but eliminated from
conscious memory. Most of us are programmed by society and by fear to think of one
who tries to remember his or her actual birth experience as weird, and anyone
who thinks about his or her own death as morose and unnaturally preoccupied with
death. But is this aversion to studying and learning about the experiences of
birth and death rational? I don’t think so. It is likely that one cannot fully
understand what life is, without knowing something about what surrounds it. On
a planet that is billions of years old, in a universe that is even older, the
duration of one human life is a very, very short experience. Is it really all
there is for you?

Why are the first and last steps in the journey of
physical life considered to be so unpleasant that to even think about them is to be avoided at all costs? It is because of
an unnecessarily emotional attachment to the physical body and identification
with the purely physical aspects of being, to the exclusion of everything else.
Of course, the physical processes of birth and death are very messy. They often
involve intense pain and the unsavory mixing of blood and feces and other vital bodily fluids
in a horrifying manner over which we have no control. In easier phases of life,
when we have good health and a clear mind, we tend to maintain a detached position,
as uninvolved with the grubby details of physical life as possible. Most of the
physical processes of the body, like breathing, blood circulation, digesting of
food and elimination of wastes, are carried out automatically. We rarely think about
them at all, and then only if absolutely necessary.

During most of our lives, we are creatures of habit, performing
most of our daily activities without thinking much about what we are, where we
came from and where we are going. We avoid thinking about the physical aspects
of the transitional stages at the beginning and ending times of birth and death.
At those times we imagine that we must be fighting for life, trying either to
get the involuntary processes going or keep them going, struggling with all our
strength to get away from pain and the fear of ceasing to exist. But, is this
fear based on the reality of the processes involved, or our imagination of what
we think they must be like? Is such abject fear warranted? Those who remember
going through these processes, almost without exception, say no. Most who
report out-of-body experiences (OBEs) like near-death experiences (NDEs), or
return- from-death experiences (RFDEs), tell us that leaving the body is actually
a relief from anxiety and pain, and sometimes even a euphoric and blissful experience,
not a horrible descent into nightmares or nothingness.

These reports of OBEs and NDEs, called psi phenomena by parapsychologists, are considered
by most mainstream scientists today to be questionable claims, even though they
have been documented and studied by independent researchers in Europe and the
US for more than 100 years, and are, and have been accepted as real in many other
parts of the world for centuries. In Wikipedia, we find the following
definitions are offered:

“Psi is the
twenty-third letter of the Greek alphabet, and was probably selected to
represent paranormal phenomena as a shortened form of the word psychic. Parapsychology is the study of paranormal and psychic phenomena, including telepathy,
precognition, clairvoyance, psychokinesis, NDEs, reincarnation,
apparitional experiences, and other paranormal
claims. It is identified as pseudoscience
by a vast majority of mainstream scientists”.

If you have been reading my posts for the past couple
of years, you know that because of my experiences and recent research, I do not
share the view of most mainstream scientists. In this post, I’m introducing my
own classification of OBEs, for reasons that I will explain below. Also, see my definitions of OBEs and NDEs in the second to last post below on this blog, "DESCRIBING THE TRUE NATURE OF REALITY". In my
opinion, all OBEs, if real, are evidence of survival of individual
consciousness outside the environment of a physical body, and they are suggestive
of the possibility that in some form, every conscious being has already existed
before birth, and will continue to exist after death. From reading accounts written
by those who have experienced consciousness outside of their physical bodies,
and from personal experiences and studies, I think life, and what goes before
and after it, are just different experiences of one thing: consciousness. And I agree with Erwin Schӧdinger, who, in his book What is Life? said there is no evidence
that the consciousness we experience is plural:

“It is not
possible (my emphasis) that this unity of knowledge, feeling and choice
which you call your own should have sprung into being from nothingness at a
given moment not so long ago; rather this knowledge, feeling and choice are
essentially eternal and unchangeable and numerically one in all men, nay in all sensitive beings”.

If the core reality of consciousness, devoid of
personal and cultural overlays impressed upon it by the experiences of a given
life, is eternal, unchangeable and numerically one in all sentient beings, then
it is possible that memories of past lives, and perhaps even future lives may
be part of the infinite field of consciousness of which the individual awareness
of a given conscious being is part. When, under certain circumstances, the mind
of an individual is freed from the confines of a physical body and the limited
physical senses that are part of the body, it appears that he or she may have a glimpse, or even a prolonged look
at a broader, more complete experience of reality, including birth and death.

In the development and application of the Triadic
Dimensional Vortical Paradigm (TDVP), where consciousness, not matter, is held
to be primary, we find that the possibility that various documented psi
phenomena may be explained as the results of different kinds or degrees of OBE
is a viable hypothesis, and looking at extrasensory perception (ESP) as a natural
result of certain kinds of OBE leads to the recognition of several possible types
of OBEs.

OBEs can be divided into three major categories: partial, complete and transcendental. Partial OBEs can be
experienced while awake or asleep, and the appearance and the functioning of
the physical body of the individual experiencing the OBE is ostensibly normal.
Examples are: remote viewing exercises and involuntary dreams that yield real awareness
of information not available to the individual through the physical senses, that
is verified by others through normal means. I have personally experienced several
partial OBEs with independent verification of specific information obtained
during them.

Complete OBEs occur when the individual experiences leaving
the body completely, like in cases of severe traumatic injury, or when vital
signs fail on the operating table. In complete OBEs, the individual may be
pronounced clinically dead, and yet experiences the event from a point outside
his or her physical body. Complete OBEs are also called NDEs. I have also experienced
this type of OBE and know others who have, including my wife Jacqui, and my
friend Alan Hugenot.

In transcendental OBEs, there is no mortal threat or
trauma, and the physical body continues to operate normally, but the five physical
senses are heightened and accompanied by an extended global awareness that is
independent of them. Transcendental OBEs are rare, and if reported at all, are
usually considered to be scientifically inexplicable, advanced mystical experiences. In my opinion,
they are only scientifically inexplicable if by science, you mean the limited philosophy
of physicalism based on the metaphysical belief in materialism.

Certain complete and transcendental OBEs are RFDEs,
and may include experiences of reincarnation with memories of past lives. I
have shared in recent posts and in previous publications the fact that I have personal
memories of past lives, know others who have, and in one recent post I shared
the statements of a number of well-known people who have had memories of past
lives.

As noted above, the study of psi phenomena, regardless
how stringently controlled and analyzed, are generally considered to be “pseudoscience”
by mainstream materialistic scientists. But, with the discovery and proofs of
the existence of the third form of reality as part of every atom of the
physical universe, the form we call gimmel, without which there would be no
life-supporting, stable atomic and molecular structure, mainstream science as it exists now actually becomes pseudoscience,
because its practitioners refuse to look at the evidence simply because they
don’t believe it can be real. People who reject real data because it doesn’t
fit their belief system, are not behaving as scientists. Scientists must be
willing to look at the data and follow it wherever it leads, regardless of what
their own beliefs are about the nature of reality.

The time has come for
mainstream scientists to look beyond their belief in materialism, because there
is indisputable experimental evidence and proof that a vast part of reality is
nonphysical.

Wednesday, September 12, 2018

After the experimental validation that the general
theory of relativity in 1919, Einstein spent the rest of his life trying to develop
a unified field theory that he hoped would link the forces of gravity, electricity
and magnetism in one mathematically consistent paradigm. He was not successful,
perhaps partly because the so-called weak and strong subatomic forces had not
yet been discovered; but, even though Einstein didn’t succeed, his efforts
inspired the search for what physicists began to refer to as the “theory of
everything”. It was thought that such a theory would reveal all of the mathematical
relationships between matter, energy, space and time. The idea that such a
theory was possible fit into the philosophy of physicalism, a philosophy of
science based on the belief that literally everything could be explained in
terms of combinations and permutations of the four fundamental physical forms:
matter, energy, space and time.

The dream of a theory of everything (TOE) is not new.
In a sense, it expresses the goal of all science. The Greek philosopher Democritus
(c.a. 460 – 370 BC), for example, thought that a complete understanding atoms,
the building blocks of the universe, would lead to understanding everything.

Pierre-Simon Marquis de Laplace expressed it this way:

An
intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in
motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this
intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would
embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the
universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be
uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes.

— Essai philosophique sur les probabilités,
Introduction, 1814

Stephen
Hawking, in a high-profile lecture in 1980, predicted that the coveted TOE would
probably be found by the year 2000. Eight or ten years later, in an early
popular book, he repeated the prediction more positively. but it still didn’t
happen, but he kept thinking and writing about a final theory of everything in
a series of books until he passed away in March 2018. In the 1980 lecture, he mistakenly
stated that Kurt Gӧdel’s Incompleteness Theorem proved that a TOE based on
physical axioms is possible. Later, he realized that Gӧdel’s theorem proved
almost the exact opposite. It suggested that while a TOE might be possible,
such a theory could not be derived from a finite set of physical axioms. This
was not the first time Stephen Hawking had to revise statements he made about
the mathematical description of a TOE. In the late 1960s, exploring solutions
of Einstein’s field equations, he famously concluded that the big-bang universe
began in a space-time singularity, a dimensionless point. But he had to reverse his position later, and in his book A Brief
History of Time, 1988, P. 50, he stated that "…there was in fact no
singularity at the beginning of the universe."

Stephen
Hawking is not the first scientist to be wrong about something. In fact, I
think you might be hard pressed to find a scientist who was or is never wrong, -
even Einstein. Einstein called his decision regarding the cosmological constant
in his relativity field equations his greatest blunder. His blunder was not
that there was a cosmological constant. Understandably, he set the constant at
the value necessary to have a stationary universe, which was the consensus
among astronomers and cosmologists at the time (1917). The blunder he referred
to was that he didn’t realize that the universe could be expanding, contracting
or stationary, depending on the value of the constant.

It is not
my intention to be unnecessarily critical of Professors Hawking and Einstein. Clearly,
they were both geniuses, with reported IQs of 155 (Hawking) and 160 (Einstein),
My point is that they were, after all, only human. They made mistakes. The
level of fame attained by both men sometimes causes people to think of them as
infallible. They were not. My second point is that science must move beyond the
physicalist idea of a theory of everything.

The TOE
envisioned by physicalists is a serious misdirection of scientific efforts
toward a shiny object that does not exist. As Max Planck stated unequivocally: “there
is no matter as such”. With the discovery of gimmel, the third form of the
substance of reality, a form that has no mass or energy, we know that a large
portion of the universe is not physical in the sense of consisting of physical
matter and energy as measured in the Large Hadron Collider. We have shown with
TDVP that most of what is being called dark matter and dark energy, is not
matter or energy at all. It is the form of reality we are calling gimmel, and
it likely has a direct relationship to what has traditionally been called
spirit or consciousness.

A real description of reality must
include all of reality, including consciousness, not just the physical tip of
the iceberg.

The
purpose of this post is to re-introduce the post below: DESCRIBING THE TRUE
NATURE OF REALITY, which I’ve just updated. Please read on.

Saturday, September 8, 2018

The history of this story goes back at least 5000
years, with concepts originating in the East, Middle East, Arabia, and Northern
Africa, inspiring Diophantus of Alexandria around 250 BC, Pierre de Fermat
around 1640 AD, and Max Planck and Albert Einstein from 1900 to 1935, to look
at the nature of reality in terms of multi-dimensional models. Modern
mainstream science has had no major paradigm shift with regard to expanding the
dimensional domain of science since quantum physics and general relativity were
proved valid around 1935. Advances have happened, but they were within the
scientific paradigm known as the Standard Model (SM). The new shift is from the
SM based on materialism to a paradigm in which consciousness is primary,
revealing the true nature of reality. It is difficult to do justice to the
importance of the discovery of the true nature of reality in a short essay, but
I must try. I haveneither the time nor
the patience to wait for the media and mainstream science to catch up.

I introduced the concept of the non-quantum receptor
in a poster presentation at Tucson II (the second Toward a Science of
Consciousness Convention) at the University of Arizona in 1996, and published
it with an introduction to the calculus of distinctions in my third book, Transcendental Physics in 1997,
re-released in 2000. Discussing these ideas in the Science Within Consciousness
Journal and the Karl Jaspers Forum online, in 2000 to 2005, someone asked:
“Putting forth such revolutionary ideas on line, aren’t you afraid someone will
steal your ideas?” Someone else responded: “If you are introducing truly new
science, no one in mainstream science will understand it even if you push it
down their throats!”

The person making the second comment was right. The
history of western science shows us that a truth outside the boundaries of the established
paradigm, however valid, is initially almost universally ignored, and condemned
as un-scientific nonsense. That was the case for paradigm breakers like Copernicus,
Planck and Einstein, and it is now the case for ideas introduced by Close and
Neppe. As Max Planck said:

“A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its
opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents
eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it”.

The purpose of this post is not to convince the
believers in the current materialistic paradigm, it is simply to present a
scientific truth as simply as possible and hope that the new generation of
scientists will be open to going beyond the box of the current mainstream
paradigm.

AN
UNAMBIGUOUS DESCRIPTION OF OUR UNIVERSE AND THE COSMOS

(A
Comprehensive Description of Everything)

Behind it all is surely an idea so simple, so beautiful, that
when we grasp it

- in a decade, a century,
or a millennium - we will all say to each other, how could it have been
otherwise? How could we have been so stupid?

– John A. Wheeler, theoretical physicist

We know now that the physical universe available to
our five senses and their physical extensions is only a very small part of
reality. If we call all of reality the cosmos,
then the physical universe we perceive through our senses is to the cosmos as a
single sentence is to a 1000-page book, or as one novel is to all the books in
all the libraries in the world. It is virtually a single unfolding thought in
the infinite mind of God.

The Triadic Dimensional Vortical Paradigm (TDVP) is a
major shift in the basis of scientific thought from a narrow materialistic view
of reality limited to consideration of the physical universe, to a comprehensive
description of everything. But, it is not a theory of everything (TOE). To clarify this, and present an
unambiguous description of everything (DOE), it is necessary to define some
basic terms.

DEFINITIONS

There are some basic terms that most people interested
in science, and even many professional scientists, often use ambiguously, so
they need to be defined accurately and carefully for the purposes of this
discussion. The definitions given below will clarify what the words mean in the
new description of reality presented here. It makes no difference whether or
not these definitions agree with dictionary definitions or with your personal understanding
of what the terms mean. The definitions given below specify their meanings in
the discussion that follows. Please refer to them any time the discussion seems
unclear.

SCIENCE:
The formal, organized effort to understand the nature of the reality we
experience.

THE
SCIENTIFIC METHOD: The practice of the process of proposing
reasonable hypotheses, also called theories,
and testing them against the experience of direct knowledge through observation
and measurement. If a hypothesis is validated by experience, it is accepted, if
not, then it should be discarded.

SCIENTIST:
A person who engages in the practice of science.

TDVP:
The Triadic Dimensional Vortical Paradigm.

TRIADIC:
Consisting
of three components, or a multiple of three components.

VORTICAL:
An adjective describing a vortex spinning in three or more dimensions.

DIMENSIONAL:
An adjective describing domains of extension.

PARADIGM:
A comprehensive understanding of reality based on empirical data and
mathematical proof.

DIMENSION:
A measure of extent, like length, width or height. This term is often used
incorrectly to mean a dimensional domain.

DIMENSIONAL
DOMAIN: A specific well-defined extent of space-time and
consciousness. For example, a line, extending infinitely is a one-dimensional
domain; a plane, extending indefinitely in two mutually orthogonal directions
is a two-dimensional domain; a volume extending indefinitely in three mutually
orthogonal directions is a three-dimensional domain; and, in general, a volume
extending indefinitely in n mutually
orthogonal directions is an n-dimensional
domain.

EXTENT: The
measure of the variable distance, area or volume, of a dimensional domain.

CONTENT:
That which occupies a dimensional Domain of three or more dimensions. Note that
dimensional domains of less than three dimensions have no capacity for content.

ORTHOGONAL
DIMENSIONS: Dimensions separated by an angle of
rotation of 90 degrees, given that one complete rotation is 360 degrees.

VORTICAL
SPIN: The rotation of a vortex.

INTRINSIC
SPIN: The increase in vortical spin caused by simultaneous rotations
around more than one axis, i.e., in more than one plane.

FIELD: A
field is a dimensional domain of finite extent in three or more dimensions, with
a well-defined distribution of mass-energy-consciousness content, for example,
the gravitational field of a planet, the energy field of a magnet, or the extent
of an individual’s consciousness.

MASS:
The resistance to motion due to vortical spin.

ENERGY:
Any force capable of creating, sustaining and altering a vortex, or distorting
the distribution of a field.

UNIVERSE:
A finite domain of three or more dimensions along with all its contents.

COSMOS:
The
infinite sum of all possible universes, past, present and future.

PRIMARY
CONSCIOUSNESS: The Infinite Reality within which all
things are embedded. The Source of all of the logical patterns of reality.

THEOREM:
A hypothesis that has been expressed mathematically and confirmed by
mathematical logic based on known axioms expressing direct experiences of
reality.

CALCULATION:
The process of transforming the form of a given representation of a known
feature of reality to a different, equivalent form.

CALCULUS:
A system of logical operations that transform the form of a given description
of a known feature of reality to a different equivalent form. For example, the
fundamental operations of arithmetic transform expressions of numerical values
as in: 1+1=2, and (3 x 4)+1=13. Other examples include algebraic
transformations such as: (x + y)(x – y) = x2 – y2, and
differential and integral calculations like: d/dx(xn) = nxn-1,
∫nxn-1 = xn + C,etc.

DISTINCTION:
Any form that can be distinguished from the rest of reality in some way.

THE
CALCULUS OF DISTINCTIONS: The logical system of calculations
that changes the form of a distinction or combinations of distinctions into different,
but equivalent forms.

THE
CALCULUS OF DIMENSIONAL DISTINCTIONS (CoDD): The logical
system of calculations that transform the form of a dimensional distinction
occupying a volumetric domain or combinations of volumetric distinctions into different,
but equivalent forms.

DIMENSIONAL
ANALYSIS: In a series of calculations involving mathematical expressions
describing a stable physical relationship (most often expressions of one or
more of the known laws of physics) in terms of distinctions measurable in units
of mass/energy, space and time, the number and symmetry of the basic units of
the final expression must match exactly the number and symmetry of the units of
the initial expression prior to the series of mathematical transformations.
Otherwise, there is an error either in physical conceptualization or mathematical
logic. This a very useful analysis usually taught to first-year university
physics students.

VOLUME: The
extent of a dimensional domain of three or more orthogonal dimensions.

THE
TRIADIC ROTATIONAL UNIT OF EQUIVALENCE (TRUE):
The basic quantum equivalence unit of the CoDD, derived from the mas/energy
equivalence of the electron.

QUANTUM:
The smallest possible measurable unit of reality.

THE
QUANTUM EQUIVALENCE PRINCIPLE: All observable and
measurable objects in the universe consist of integral multiples of the quantum
equivalence unit (TRUE).

DIMENSIONAL
EXTRAPOLATION: The projection from an n-dimensional
domain into an (n+1)-dimensional domain. The process of dimensional
extrapolation from an n-dimensional domain where the numerical types of the
dimensions are known, results in the definition of the mathematical nature of
the (n+1)th dimension. For example, extrapolation from a
3-dimensional domain into a 4-dimensional domain reveals that the 4th
dimension is measurable in the primary type of complex numbers, i.e., integer
multiples of the so-called imaginary unit, the square-root of negative one
(√-1).

THE
DIMENSIONAL INVARIANCE PRINCIPLE: An n-dimensional domain
can only be observed and/or measured from an (n+1)-dimensional domain.

DIOPHANTINE EQUATIONS: Diophantine equations are polynomial equations, usually in two or more unknowns, such that only the integer solutions are sought or studied (an integer solution is a solution such that all the unknowns take integer values). They are named after Diophantus of Alexandria (210 -294 AD).

Don’t
worry if you don’t understand all of the details of the definitions of the
terms listed above. They will become clear and meaningful as they are used in
this discussion.

DISCUSSION:
THE TRUE NATURE OF REALITY

Introduction

I will begin by explaining how the practice of science
based on belief rather than knowledge leads to erroneous conclusions about the
nature of reality. Then I will explain how replacing belief with an analysis of
experience replaces belief with knowledge and leads to a new paradigm. This
will be followed by a broad-brush description of the nature of reality revealed
by the new paradigm, and a description of how the new paradigm was discovered. Finally,
I will list some of the major problems with the current mainstream belief-based
paradigm that are explained by the new experience-based paradigm. I will
provide references to publications containing the detailed derivations from
empirical data and mathematical proofs of the basic parameters establishing the
new paradigm that describes the true nature of reality and explain some of the
conundrums and paradoxes of the current belief-based paradigm of mainstream
science.

The Belief-based Standard Model of
Reality

The current mainstream model promoted by most modern scientists
is based on the metaphysical belief system of materialism, also called physicalism.
In this belief system, the entirety of reality is believed to consist of matter
and energy in the form of combinations of elementary particles and weak and
strong forces evolving and interacting in the arena of a universal relativistic space-time domain.
Consciousness is believed to be an epiphenomenon of physical evolution, i.e.,
something secondary to physical reality, arising when a sufficiently
sophisticated level of physical
complexity is attained. Mainstream scientists have not explained how this complexity
could evolve from particles flying apart in a universe expanding from a
big-bang explosion. They have not discovered what consciousness is, or how it
arises from matter, but they express confidence that it will all be explained
when a real “theory of everything” based on physical principles is finally discovered.
But a physical theory of everything is an unachievable goal, because not
everything we experience is physical.

The job of science is to explain everything we experience. Materialism is an attractive hypothesis
because of its simplicity, but should not be used as the basis of scientific
investigation because it fails the test of falsifiability. The hypothesis that
a physical universe can exist without consciousness cannot be tested. To
discover what is wrong with the mainstream theory, and understand why it leads
to puzzles and paradoxes at both the quantum and cosmic levels of measurement,
we only need to return to what we actually experience. Recall that the first
definition listed above identifies science as the effort to understand the
nature of the reality we experience, not what we believe or imagine might exist. The physical theory of
everything envisioned by mainstream science is not really a theory of
everything, because it does not include everything we experience in its
axiomatic basis. Limited to physical reality, science cannot explain more than
about 5% of everything we experience, and produces no answers for our most
important questions concerning the ultimate nature of reality, the source of consciousness,
and the meaning or purpose of existence.

All of the observations and measurements of scientific
experimentation are possible only because of the conscious drawing of
distinctions, not because of the pre-observation existence of an independent physical
universe assumed by physicalists. The first distinction drawn is the
distinction of self from other, the direct consciousexperience of the separation of ‘in-here” from ‘out-there’. The first mistake of materialism occurs when reality is
assumed to be binary, leading them to focus on the distinction between an
object of observation and its surroundings, ignoring the third component, which
is the conscious entity drawing the
distinction. By relegating consciousness to a dimensionless point outside
the domain of scientific observation and measurement, physicalism misses the
key to understanding the nature of reality.

In fact, mainstream science is not science as defined.
It has, however, played a very important role in the slow development of human
civilization. By limiting the goal of research and experimentation to
understanding the mechanics of physical reality, mainstream science has been
very successful solving practical problems related to physical survival and the
manipulation of the physical environment. But, that is not science as defined
above; it is pragmatic technological engineering. By focusing on the mechanics
of physical reality, mainstream science has ignored the ontological connection
of consciousness with reality, and has therefore no effective way to study the
nature of the relationship of consciousness to physical reality.

On the other hand, the limited practical approach of current
mainstream science has served us well in one respect. Because of the successes
of engineering technology, we no longer have to fight wild animals and the
environmental elements to survive. We have created a safety buffer called modern
civilization, creating a comfortable physical existence and providing the
leisure time needed for a deeper look into the nature of reality. It is
critical that we do this now, because if we squander the anxiety-free time
provided by labor-saving devices produced by engineering technology in the
pursuit of short-term gratification, the lack of a deeper understanding of the
nature of reality will result in the decay and self-destruction of
civilization.

Consciousness is actually the only thing that we
experience directly, so it must be included in any serious scientific endeavor
to understand reality. Everything else is perceived indirectly through the
senses. To think of consciousness as less real
than the objects it perceives indirectly is a fatal mistake, dooming mainstream
science to the pseudoscience of physicalism and the dead end of materialism. This
short-sightedness has led to loss of meaning, decadence and the decay of modern
civilization. With an understanding of what is at stake, it is of paramount
importance that we rectify the errors of materialistic science and physicalism
as soon as possible. How do we begin to do that? By including consciousness in
the equations describing reality. This is what is done in Close & Neppe's TDSVP. Let me
explain how.

The Road to a Reality Paradigm

If the bricks of the yellow brick road leading to the
Land of Oz were the elementary particles of particle physics, the Emerald City would
be the mainstream paradigm. When the light of scientific inspection is expanded
to the scope of the reality we experience, the hypothetical particles of
mainstream science fade away and disappear like the bricks of Dorothy’s dream. When individualized consciousness
dons the ruby slippers of the calculus of dimensional distinctions and clicks
its heels, it awakens from the dream of materialism and returns to the reality
of the greater cosmos. The discoveries of relativity and quantum physics reveal
quantized building blocks at the bottom of physical reality, but, as Planck
indicated when he said “there is no matter
as such”, they are not physical particles at all. Instead, TDVP shows us that they are energy vortices,
spinning simultaneously in multiple dimensions. To understand how and why this
is true, we must apply the calculus of dimensional dimensions (CoDD) to analyze experience.

Going back to experience, then, we realized that conscious
experience is triadic, not binary as assumed by the scientists who developed
the standard model. We experience , the resistance of mass (1.), the impact of
energy (2.) and the mutable image of a finite volumetric expanse of space and
time as our field of awareness (3.). To properly describe quantized reality, we
must have a set of unitary quantum distinctions to use, just as we use units of
size, weight, and time, e.g., inches, pounds and minutes, to measure any normal
size physical object. But, these conventional units are far too large to use to
measure quanta. Trying to do so is like trying to measure the diameters of
dust particles in units of light years, the distance between galaxies!

Planck defined quantum units for quantum reality by
naturalizing certain fundamental constants of physics: the speed of light, the
Coulomb constant, Boltzmann’s constant, and the gravitational constant.
”Naturalizing” them means setting the unit values of these constants equal to
one. This is not some arcane definitional concept done for mysterious reasons. We
unitize measures of physical objects all the time: We measure distances in
multiples of one inch, or one meter, mass in multiples of one pound or one
gram, and time in multiples of one second. However, the unitary length of one inch,
the weight of one pound, and the duration of one second, are arbitrarily chosen
for convenience of measurement and calculation. Setting fundamental constants
of nature to unity at the quantum level provides “natural” units of
measurement, which physicists call Planck units in honor of Max Planck.

The
table below shows the relationships between these fundamental universal
constants and conventional international units of measurement.

Notice that the basic unit types for measurement of
the speed of light are length and time, and for the gravitational constant, they
are length, mass and time. Considering the mathematical equivalence of mass and
energy (E – mc2), these unit types, M, L and T, (mass, length and time) are all that are
needed to describe physical reality. All other measurable variables can always be
expressed in mathematical combinations of these three basic units. For example,
density is mass per unit volume (M/L3), Force = mass times
acceleration = Ma = ML/T2, etc. The reader can verify this for other
physical parameters. The other two constants, Ke and KB,
contain linear measures of electrical charge and temperature that may vary over
the field of observation.

The CoDD requires naturalized units of measurement for
use in calculation, just as the standard model does. So, one might ask, why not
just use Planck units? To answer this question, we turn to TRUE, the quantum
equivalence unit of the CoDD, combined with dimensional
analysis (see definitions above. In the CoDD, we have defined the TRUE, the
quantum equivalence unit derived from the physical characteristics of the
electron, as the basic unit of the calculus. For this application of dimensional
analysis, let U represent the TRUE, the quantum equivalence unit.

Looking at the fourth column of the table above, we
see that the dimensional analysis of four of these universal constants shows
that they are symmetric. That is, in quantum equivalence units, the dimensional
domains of 1, 2 or 3 dimensions cancel out in the dimensional analysis, making
the constant dimensionless. This means that c, G, Ke, and KB
are unitary regardless of the size of the units used, whether inches, meters,
grams, pounds, etc. when they are quantized and naturalized. Thus they are
verified as being universal constants in the CoDD, just as they are in the
standard model. The fifth constant, h, Planck’s constant, however, proves to be
asymmetric, because the dimensional domains do not cancel. Thus h is not a
universal constant, because its value depends on the units of measurement
chosen.

This is not the only thing that makes the TRUE (quantum
equivalence units) different than Planck units. The TRUE, the ultimate quantum
units used in CoDD calculations, are natural quantum units based on the mass
and volume of the electron, the elementary object with the smallest mass in the
stable components of the natural elements. It is thus the true building block of
the physical universe, and the Quantum Equivalence Principle (see definition
above) implies that if the TRUE is the true quantum building block of the
universe, then all real objects will contain integer (whole number) multiples
of the TRUE, and thus the equations describing real phenomena will be
Diophantine equations with integer solutions.

The fact that the Planck constant is not an integer in
any system of units, tells us that Planck units are not quantum units, while
triadic rotational units of equivalence (TRUE) are. This conclusion is verified
by the many explanations of empirical observations and agreements with
experimental data obtained by applying the CoDD with the TRUE as the basic
distinction. These verifications with real data and logical explanations of
observed phenomena that are not explained in the standard model paradigm,
establishes TDVP as a valid scientific paradigm, not just a theory.

With the
mathematical proofs provided in our published papers, TDVP attains the status
of a theorem. It is no longer just a theoretical hypothesis. The following examples
of successful solutions of some of the paradoxes and puzzles of the standard
model, with references to the detailed presentations of derivations and proofs are
offered as evidence of the validity of TDVP.

PROBLEMS
SOLVED BY TDVP

1.)Why
are protons and neutrons combinations of three quarks and not some other
electrically neutral combination? Applications of the CoDD with TRUE to the
Diophantine combinatorial equations show that other combinations are
mathematically and dimensionally impossible because they would violate Fermat’s
Last Theorem. The proof has beeen published in several of the references below.

2.)Why
do fermions like protons have an intrinsic one-half integer spin? In standard
model physics, intrinsic spin is considered part of quantum weirdness that
cannot be explained in classical terms. The half-integer spin of fermions and
whole-integer spin of bosons are postulated as numerical features of the
quantum states of elementary particles, that cannot be derived from first
principles and have nothing to do with physical rotation, even though they
contribute to the total angular momentum of the particle. However, the
application of 9-D spin dynamics in TDVP explains intrinsic spins perfectly
well as the direct result of simultaneous rotation in multiple dimensions. Dimensional
mathematical proof has been published. See References.

3.)Why
do protons and neutrons have so much more mass than the combined mass of the
quarks of which they are composed? The standard model posits particles called
gluons that hold the quarks together and impart the extra mass to the combination
even though in theory, they themselves have zero mass. TDVP derives the mass of
the proton and neutron from CoDD applications with TRUE that agree exactly with
the results of exhaustive statistical analysis of experimental data from the
LHC. See these derivations in published reference listed below.

4.)The
standard model does not explain from theory or from first principles why the
Cabibbo quark mixing angle is 13.04 degrees, while TDVP provides a
straight-forward derivation from 9-D CoDD dynamics calculating the angle at 13.0392
degrees. See References.

5.)The
standard model does not explain why there is something rather than nothing. The
standard model scientist assumes that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of
matter that has no direct causative relationship in the formation, evolution
and ultimate nature of reality. Because of this assumption, consciousness has
no place in the equations used to describe reality in the theories of mainstream
science. TDVP, on the other hand, by following the data of quantum physics experiments
where they lead, found that there would be no physical universe if some form of
primary consciousness did not exist prior to the formation of protons, neutrons
and the natural elements. With the discovery of gimmel, the third (non-mass,
non-energy) form of the essential substance of reality, TDVP explains why there
is something rather than nothing. See References.

6.)Gimmel,
the third form of reality discovered by applying the logic of the CoDD to the
mathematical description of the combination of quarks that form stable protons
in the 9-D dimensional domain of the finite cosmos, is the link between
physical reality and primary consciousness, the substrate of reality, in which
the 9-D finite domains of the physical universe and the cosmos are embedded.

This is only the beginning of a long list of fifty-some phenomena,
paradoxes and puzzles not explained by
the standard model, that are
explained by TDVP using CoDD Diophantine integer mathematics with the TRUE
quantum unit derived from data on the electron and quarks from DHC data. See
References.

Max Planck discovered the quantization of energy, and
Albert Einstein provided the equations expressing the equivalence of mass and
energy. The Large Hadron Collider, the largest, most sophisticated machine
developed by mainstream science so far, has produced mega terabytes of physical
data defining the mass and energy of the building blocks of physical reality,
providing very accurate estimates of the mass and energy equivalence of
electrons and quarks for use as the
basis for defining the true quantum equivalence units needed for the calculus
of dimensional distinctions.

Reality is triadic, consisting of three sequentially
embedded dimensional domains: space, time and consciousness, which are describable in
variables of extent, and three forms of the essence of reality: mass, energy
and consciousness, describable in variables of content.

Since the new paradigm has been validated with
empirical data from the Large Hadron Collider and mathematical proof, as prerviously statedit is no
longer a theory. Thus, since it is not a theory, TDVP is not a theory of
everything, instead, it is a description of everything.

10. Close ER, Neppe VM: Putting consciousness into the
equations of science: the third form of reality (gimmel) and the “TRUE” units
(Triadic Rotational Units of Equivalence) of quantum measurement IQNexus Journal 7: 4; 7-119, 2015.

12. Close ER, Neppe VM: Speculations on the “God
matrix”: The third form of reality (gimmel) and the refutation of materialism
and on gluons.World Institute for
Scientific Exploration (WISE) Journal 4: 4; 3-30, 2015.

15. Close ER, Neppe VM: Derivation and application of
TRUE quantum calculus for the analysis of quantized reality, including
empirically verifiable new approaches to mass, neutrons, protons, law of
conservation of gimmel and TRUE, TDVP and Deuterium. 2018 In submission.

22. Morgart E: The theory of everything has nine
dimensions: The sparkling diamond and the quanta jewel turn quantum physics and
the nine-pronged world of consciousness— on its ear.USA Today Magazine: 1 (January); 66-68, 2014.

36. Close ER, Neppe VM: Introductory summary
perspective on TRUE and gimmel (Part 1) in Putting consciousness into the
equations of science: the third form of reality (gimmel) and the “TRUE” units
(Triadic Rotational Units of Equivalence) of quantum measurement IQNexus Journal 7: 4; 8-15, 2015.

51. Gell-Mann M: The
Quark and the Jaguar: Adventures in the Simple and the Complex. New York,
NY: Henry Holt and Co. 1995.

52. Close ER, Neppe VM: The problem of determining the
mass of the neutron: Section 7: In: Derivation and application of TRUE quantum
calculus for the analysis of quantized reality. 2018, In submission.

53. Close ER, Neppe VM: Applying hydrogen-1 and
deuterium: The origin of mass: Section 8: In: Derivation and application of
TRUE quantum calculus for the analysis of quantized reality. 2018, In
submission.

102. Close ER, Neppe VM: Application of TRUE analysis
to the elements of the periodic table: Section 9: In: Derivation and
application of TRUE quantum calculus for the analysis of quantized reality.
2018, In submission.

103. Neppe VM: The
Psychology of Déjà Vu: Have I been Here Before? Johannesburg: Witwatersrand
University Press. 1983.